FRCP 12(b)(6)-pro’se stopper

For years, I’ve watched pro se plaintiff after pro se
plaintiff have their complaints dismissed by federal courts based on a
defendant’s pre-trial, Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) “for failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted.” Although the federal courts’ repeatedly grant of 12(b)(6)
Motions to Dismiss, the meaning of the phrase “failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted” has remained almost as obscure as that of
a magical incantation (“abra
cadabra!”).
Everyone has heard the words but no one seems to understand what they really
mean. ‘1

Over
the years, I’ve speculated on several possible explanations for what
“failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted” might
truly mean. What follows are several case excerpts plus more of my bracketed
speculation. This speculation is somewhat “stream of consciousness”
but nevertheless expresses my “theory de jure” as to what that
mysterious phrase might really mean. I can’t say this current speculation is
true, but it’s probably my best to date.

“The
general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a
complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed ‘***unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief/ CONLEY
VS. GIBSON (1957), 355 U.S. 41, 45, 46, 78 S.Ct. 99,102, 2LEd 2d 80; SEYMOUR
VS. UNION NEWS COMPANY, 7 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 168; and see rule 54c, demand
for judgment, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA: “***every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the

PUBLISHED BY:

ORA was founded in 1991 by Richard A. Rinaldi and is an acronym for Operations Research Associates with a logo depicting an abstract time concept relating to business cycles and time management. The practice focus areas are executive mentoring, in-house training and business strategy formulation with cash optimization the driving objective.